(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
NC Supreme Court votes to throw out some, but not all, ballots contested in 2024 race for seat on court [1]
[]
Date: 2025-04-11 17:11:00-04:00
Republican Jefferson Griffin has scored a partial victory Friday in his effort to throw out thousands of North Carolina voters' ballots from the 2024 election — an outcome that could help him secure a seat on the state's highest court.
Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, ran against Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs for her seat in November. He received 734 fewer votes than Riggs, recounts determined. But the race hasn't been certified while courts sort out Griffin’s attempt to throw out approximately 65,000 voters’ ballots.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, in a series of orders Friday, ruled that most of the voters should have their votes counted. But the court ruled in Griffin’s favor for some arguments, opening the door for potentially thousands of ballots by overseas voters to be thrown out.
The 4-2 decision, which came mostly along party lines, partially overturns a Court of Appeals ruling that had ruled entirely in favor of Griffin.
The upshot: A victory for Griffin in court that could become a victory in the election. Griffin's challenges targeted Democratic voters disproportionately. He has previously written in legal briefs that even in this exact scenario — in which the Supreme Court rejects most of his challenges but upholds his challenges against overseas voters — he would expect to be declared the winner of the election.
"The decision today brings this election one step closer to a conclusion ensuring every legal vote will be counted," Matt Mercer, a spokesman for the North Carolina Republican Party, said in a statement. Griffin didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Riggs, whose parents’ ballots were among those challenged, castigated the court for its decision and said she would take the case to federal court.
"It is unacceptable that the Court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas," Riggs, who recused herself from the case, said in a statement. "While I’m gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much."
Voter ID in question
Griffin had said the state can't be sure the voters in question are who they say they are, and their ballots should be thrown out to protect election integrity. His opponents, including the State Board of Elections, have said that's false and that he's trying to change voting rules after the election is over.
The Supreme Court rejected Griffin’s effort to throw out the ballots of more than 60,000 people whose driver's license number or Social Security number is missing from a spreadsheet the state maintains of registered voters. The court ruled those voters had done nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished for mistakes made by the State Board of Elections.
The court didn't apply that same logic to the overseas voters.
In the November elections, as well as in several elections before then when the state's new voter ID law has been in effect, overseas voters have never been required to show voter ID. State law didn't explicitly require it, and state elections officials have passed numerous formal rules making it clear that overseas voters don't need to show ID. Those election rules were never challenged during or after any of those other elections, until now. The Supreme Court's ruling Friday made no mention of the fact that overseas voters were told by elections officials that they didn't have to show ID. It said they now need to show ID or else have their ballots thrown out.
The Supreme Court didn't hold oral arguments in this case, which could have allowed the two sides to provide details on why they thought those rules were either right or wrong. And Friday's ruling doesn't explain how the court came to the conclusion that the overseas voters should've shown ID.
The court also made no comment on a new interpretation of the North Carolina Constitution made by the appeals court, striking down a 2011 law that allows overseas residents to vote in North Carolina as long as they're U.S. citizens and their parents are North Carolina residents. The appeals court threw out about 200 ballots by those voters when it decided they never should've been allowed to vote in the first place; the Supreme Court allowed that ruling to stand.
Breaking GOP ranks
The decision saw one of the court's Republican justices break party ranks, while the rest made up the majority ruling for Griffin.
Justice Richard Dietz, the only Supreme Court Republican not to rule for Griffin, has previously said Griffin's case shouldn't have been allowed to proceed since it sought to change election rules after the election was over. He also criticized his colleagues for rushing out Friday's ruling without hearing arguments from the opposing sides.
"By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades," Dietz wrote. "It cries out for our full review and for a decisive rejection of this sort of post hoc judicial tampering in election results."
Democratic Justice Anita Earls wrote a fiery dissent accusing her colleagues of facilitating a "bloodless coup" with their ruling.
"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," Earls wrote. "Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate."
Griffin didn't challenge most overseas voters in North Carolina. Instead, he limited his challenges to only four of North Carolina's 100 counties.
All four are Democratic-leaning counties with large universities. Many of the voters challenged are likely to have been college students who voted while studying abroad during the fall semester; others could be members of the military or people living overseas for other reasons. College-aged voters have tended to lean Democratic in past North Carolina elections.
Earls also took issue with Griffin targeting voters from just four counties, and the Supreme Court's acceptance of that strategy. She questioned how her colleagues could possibly justify creating a reality in which many voters broke an alleged rule, but only some will be punished, based solely on where they live.
"Explaining how that is fair, just, or consistent with fundamental legal principles is impossible, so the majority does not try," she wrote.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Court of Appeals Friday to write final instructions for how those overseas voters can prove their identity, or else have their ballots thrown out. The high court prescribed a 30-day timeline for voters to prove their identities. In the meantime, the State Board of Elections has posted an FAQ for challenged voters online.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who oversees the state elections board, criticized the ruling, calling it "a dark day for our courts and our state." He said it was unfair for certain active duty military voters to have to jump through hoops that other voters don’t have to.
"All voters have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law — it is foundational to our democracy," he said in a social media post. "It’s unconscionable, and this decision cannot stand."
The 30-day clock for voters to prove their identities likely won't start ticking immediately. Riggs’ appeal in federal court is expected to extend the battle. The elections board is expected to join her.
"State Board of Elections staff are continuing to review the effect of these decisions and, at the appropriate time, will provide instructions for county boards of elections and affected voters on how to comply with the decisions," the board said in a statement late Friday. "This protest does not affect these voters’ selections in any other contest on the ballot."
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.wral.com/story/nc-supreme-court-votes-to-throw-out-some-but-not-all-ballots-contested-in-2024-race-for-seat-on-court/21955935/
Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/
